Sandiganbayan dismisses another civil...

among others.

the prosecution had alleged that the co-defendants took advantage of their close ties with the former president and first lady, acting as their dummies in acquiring the following assets:

• Philippine Village Hotel

• Ternate Development Corporation

• Silahis International Hotel

• Hotel Properties, Inc.

• Philroad Construction Corporation

• Fantasia Filipinas Resorts, Inc.

• Monte Sol Development Corporation sandiganbayan also noted several of the evidence presented by PCGG were inadmissible as judicial evidence, as PCGG records custodian maria Lourdes magno did not have personal knowledge on the veracity and legitimacy of some of the documents. she was the sole witness presented by PCGG. sandiganbayan also said the amended standards on the Best evidence rule — which after 2019, allowed the use of document duplicates as an evidence — cannot be applied retroactively to the case. this means that the anti-graft court sticks by the old rules, which state that original document must be produced, and not photocopies or duplicates. the anti-graft court said it is the duty of the accuser to prove the accusations leveled against the defendants.

• Olas Del Mar Development Co.

• Puerta Azul Villas Condominium. the co-defendants were modesto enriquez, trinidad Diaz-enriquez, rebecco Panlilio, erlinda enriquez-Panlilio, Leandro enriquez, Don m ferry, roman Cruz Jr., and Gregorio Castillio, second Division Associate Justice Arthur malabaguio penned the decision. Division chair Associate Justice oscar herrera and Associate Justice edgardo Caldona concurred.

“to begin with, the Writs of sequestration previously issued by the PCGG […] marked as exhibits ‘A’ to ‘D’, do not, by themselves, prove that the properties are ill-gotten considering that sequestration is only the taking into custody or placing under the PCGG’s control or possession any asset, fund, or other property […] to prevent their concealment, destruction, impairment, or dissipation pending the determination of the question whether said asset, fund, or property is ill-gotten wealth,” the second Division said.

“Nothing in the face of these documents shows that defendants ferdinand e marcos and Imelda r marcos had any interest or control over the subject corporations. this has been duly emphasized by defendants’ witness ezpeleta-torralba in testifying that during her entire service to spouses Panlilio, she has never seen defendants ferdinand e marcos and Imelda r marcos take part in the corporation’s meetings and/or activities,” it added.

“Witness magno admitted, however, that her testimony is limited only to the fact that these documents are under the custody of PCGG,” sandiganbayan said.

“In other words, the statement of witness magno being relied upon by the plaintiff was based not on the declarant’s personal knowledge as to the veracity of the documentary exhibits, but only on the fact that she is the current custodian of the said documents,” it added.

“At any rate, it is the duty of the complainant to set forth and prove the facts before the Court, absent which, no recompense can be imposed. In this respect, by clear provision of the law, the proverbial sword of Damocles must necessarily cease to dangle,” it noted.

Civil Case No. 0014 is the same case where the marcoses requested that they be allowed to explain their side, as they were not able to comment on the issue due to their self-exile.

Last June 2022, the anti-graft court granted the motion, allowing the heirs of the former president to air their defense so that “cases should be decided after giving all the parties a chance to argue their cases and defenses.” n